Sfdebris.net

Arkle wrote:

FaxModem1 wrote:That's not to say I don't think we should have lines of self defense, and ensure that one isn't a lamb to the slaughter, but hitting someone for simply disagreeing with you means that you are against someone discussing anything with you.

The problem with this statement is, when we're talking about someone advocating fro denial of rights to a community you belong to, that's not mere disagreement. They are trying to destroy you. Tarja vs. Annete is a mere disagreement. Kirk vs. Picard is a mere disagreement. DC vs. Marvel is a mere disagreement. Mike vs. Joel is mere disagreement. If Richard Spencer were being punched in the face because he didn't think Jar Jar Binks was all that bad your point would be 100% valid. In reality though, it's not so clear cut.

The problem with that statement is that, until the racist/bigot actually does or says something that directly threatens your immediate safety, it is in fact still only a disagreement. If someone is mouthing off about how we should deal with (Group A) and you happen to be a member of that group, you may feel threatened but it would be difficult to prove in a court of law that you were directly and immediately threatened. Bigotry should be confronted, yes, but if you resort to violence a court of law is exactly where you may wind up trying to justify your actions.

Look, I know where you're coming from. I've wanted to punch some of these @$$holes in the throat a time or two myself. I don't because, as others on this thread have mentioned, it won't convince them of the error of their ways. While it may be really satisfying to give them a taste of the kind of violence marginalized people have dealt with forever, it will only foster resentment on their part. Sometimes violence is justified but just because someone holds a view you find personally abhorrent is not one of them.

If it's not about winning hearts and minds then why stop at just beating them up? If it's not about what's "legal" but rather what's "right" then who decides what's right? As Fixer notes above, it's slippery slope from silencing radicals to silencing moderates to silencing any dissenting opinions. Isn't that one of the most fundamental aspects of "fascism?"

Anyway let me just also reiterate, here, that Tarja is the better singer.

CareerKnight wrote: The thing is that this is a good counter example for your argument. Gays can now get married in the US and it wasn't punching a bunch of bigots in the face that got us here. The thing was that a lot of people who were originally against it were convinced to change their minds through rational arguments, made easier by the fact it was something a lot of them hadn't giving much thought to before. If you start shoving around someone who is in that position they're more likely to push back than to reconsider.

Ah yes, I remember the Stonewall Peaceful Protests. And the White Night Drum Circles where everyone quietly waited their turn to speak about how being oppressed made them sad.

The struggle for gay rights had existed in some form or another since the late 1800s, but it wasn't until the 1970s and its violent clashes and rhetoric that any substantial progress was made. Talking and civil discussion are really only possible if all sides agree to the basic humanity of everyone involved. And it's pretty gross when people come in, long after the violent struggle for that basic humanity has been won, and completely disregard it while pointing to other victories that were only possible because of it.

A different opinion about someone's existence isn't a disagreement, it is a threat. And history has shown that these threats are far too often acted upon. Punching Nazis is self defense in every context.

"In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience." - Stokely Carmichael

At the same time, though, punching Nazis and not in immediate self-defense contributes to an environment of "political violence is okay". Which is the environment they want anyway, yes, but which most know will not work for them. Not unless political violence has already become part of life.

It's not an easy thing because, as pointed out, sometimes you need the hawks willing to throw a punch and to rise up to demonstrate their grievances, but if you rely too much on the hawks, you scare people and give your opponents a chance to play themselves up as the "law & order" faction (even if they're not). So consider me on the side of erring on the side of caution when it comes to commencing violence against intolerant assholes.

Wild_Kraken wrote: The struggle for gay rights had existed in some form or another since the late 1800s, but it wasn't until the 1970s and its violent clashes and rhetoric that any substantial progress was made. Talking and civil discussion are really only possible if all sides agree to the basic humanity of everyone involved. And it's pretty gross when people come in, long after the violent struggle for that basic humanity has been won, and completely disregard it while pointing to other victories that were only possible because of it.

A different opinion about someone's existence isn't a disagreement, it is a threat. And history has shown that these threats are far too often acted upon. Punching Nazis is self defense in every context.

You took what I was going to say in retort.
Just look how long it took to get marriage equality.

Like you said, peaceful resistance only works if the people you are working against have a conscience or sense of shame or are able to accept the basic premise of the argument. There are people with radio shows talking about how the "gay agenda" is literally overseen and operated by demons. How do you peacefully protest that? Violence is often (if not always) necessary to break the unacceptable peace.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

"Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
-Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963

I am so torn on the "Should racists be beaten up" issue. On the one hand I agree that love wins and you can't change someone's mind by beating them up.

On the other, someone that is actively advocating genocide is probably too far gone to be reached anyway, and it's also important to make it clear that hatred will not be tolerated, and that we will defend our human brethren by any means necessary.

Jimmy Carter wrote:History teaches, perhaps, very few clear lessons. But surely one such lesson learned by the world at great cost is that aggression, unopposed, becomes a contagious disease.

Starting a fight, no matter the reason, always spreads aggression. Not opposing it in a constructive manner establishes it as a valid way of accomplishing goals, and spreads more aggression. Punching a Nazi gives the Nazis credibility when they beat a Jew bloody; after all, their opponents are hardly better.

TGLS wrote: Starting a fight, no matter the reason, always spreads aggression. Not opposing it in a constructive manner establishes it as a valid way of accomplishing goals, and spreads more aggression. Punching a Nazi gives the Nazis credibility when they beat a Jew bloody; after all, their opponents are hardly better.

Except they are attacking a Jewish person because they believe the Jews should be exterminated.
While they are being punched in the face because they are advocating the extermination of Jews.

What you are saying is false equivalency. My opposition of bigotry and hate is not the same as bigotry and hate.

Rocketboy1313 wrote:

TGLS wrote: Starting a fight, no matter the reason, always spreads aggression. Not opposing it in a constructive manner establishes it as a valid way of accomplishing goals, and spreads more aggression. Punching a Nazi gives the Nazis credibility when they beat a Jew bloody; after all, their opponents are hardly better.

Except they are attacking a Jewish person because they believe the Jews should be exterminated.
While they are being punched in the face because they are advocating the extermination of Jews.

What you are saying is false equivalency. My opposition of bigotry and hate is not the same as bigotry and hate.

The decision to meet violence with violence is a difficult subject to cover in its entirety because of all the moral grey areas and I think it prompts a very important fundamental question here, which is more important: action or intent? Moreover, is said violence being used as a last resort or to preempt harm and which can be said increases solidarity? Hell, is solidarity even being considered as part of the end goal or is it wholly about obliterating the other viewpoint?

What clouds this more than anything else is that these kinds of discussions are rarely based in logic and more so in emotion. Thoughts like "They deserve to suffer for making others suffer," or "I will not lower myself to their level." Very human and very comparative rationales. I may be wrong, but human beings seem to consider a prejudice or bias vanquished when someone or something is accepted without any overt conscientious effort. For example, a gay couple are treated precisely the same way a heterosexual couple are because it's only a facet of who they are as a person. No more, no less. It's a normal part of life and calling people out on it is like shrieking that someone has red hair, it gets them baffled looks.

Similarly, passive resistance isn't so much about directly pushing back against the negative viewpoint (sometimes giving it more press than it deserves), but more about promoting the values of that positive standpoint. Spreading it around to those who are more receptive to it. The more people see the value of accepting the Other (whoever that might be), the less likely that opposing view is to take root. It leads to a greater diversity of thought and hopefully a greater pool of evidence and resources you can draw from to prove that these people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do without fear or prejudice.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be others out there preventing neo-Nazis from blowing up a university just because they accept the Muslim hijab on campus. You need both, but the focus shouldn't be on just quashing your opponents' views.

Before I begin, I'm going to prefix my post with this: I don't think Chuck in the review was specifically talking about the event where a Nazi ("alt-right") was getting punched in the face. If he was, then I think that his answer was too simplistic.

Since we're here, I'll just throw in my two cents. Take it or leave it, it's up to you.

The problem with a blanket ban on violence as a form of protest is impossible. Why? Because an opponent may not just want to bar your rights, but he may want to harm or kill you for simply for being different. You are no harm to them, but they are actively murderous to you.

You know what used to happen to queer people in the past? They would be beaten, mutilated, and killed for being different. While it has improved in the US, it's still not gone. (Especially if you are Trans, because of bathroom bill bullshit.)

Now let's apply this to Mr. Punched-in-the-face. What had he done? He had, on multiple occasions, posited questions like "Is Black genocide right?" and "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" He had no qualms on exterminating a group of people because of a fucking biological triviality. And the worst part is that he's not the only one who believes that bullshit.

Ideally, yes, violence is not the answer. When their opinion isn't particularly popular, you have to stand up to them and discredit them. But when they are gathering/possessing power, sometimes you got to take the fight to them, even if it means punching them in the goddamn face. Because God knows that I don't want another mass genocide to occur.

As an aside, you know what was so great about that punch? A white guy punched him. If a black person punched him, then it absolutely reconfirms the views of anyone who sees it. But it's harder to claim that it's "Whites vs Blacks" when it's a white dude that throws the punch. This shit is why "allies" are so important, because it contradicts the view of "us vs them".

Basically, any form of equality that occurred nowadays had a history of violence and breaking the law. Women defended themselves against men, a trans woman threw the first brick at Stonewall, and we had a fucking Civil War that began the process of freeing the slaves and making them citizens. (And for God's sake, don't tell me Dr. King was a complete pacifist and obeyed the law. Because he fucking wasn't.)

Just like in war, never fighting doesn't magically solve all your problems. Sometimes there is no choice but to fight. And I'm not saying that we go and attack Nazi compounds, but we cannot stand by and let them spew their venom in public either.

I am honestly concerned for this country, because of the Nazi nutjobs that actively supported Trump's campaign and feel empowered by his win. While I doubt I'll ever punch one, I think giving one a bloody nose is far better than letting them feel safe enough to start attacking others.

Far better that then people being murdered pointlessly.